|
California's recently approved Proposition 69 expands DNA sampling to
include non-violent felons and essentially lumps all "felons" into one
suspicious group. Such measures are in place in 34 other states but
they violate American principles of fair play and redemption.
Did voters assume that all people who've messed up their lives at one
point are potential career criminals? Many did foolish pranks as
youths, hung out with the wrong crowd or got tangled up in inflated
drug charges. Are they automatically losers for life because of that?
Many have risen well above their darkest hours, and it often wasn't
nearly as bad as the "felon" label implied. Wider DNA testing will
dredge up bad memories and treat them as terminally flawed people.
On the other hand, a lot of rotten punks have gotten by with no
arrests or just misdemeanors, and won't be forced to give DNA, even
with greater potential for mayhem. Since a wide net is being cast by
Prop. 69, why not test all (technically) law-abiding citizens who
could easily become felons on a bad day? Gun nuts or trophy hunters
who kill for pleasure would be a good place to start. It only takes
one act to turn a "citizen" into a truly violent felon.
Prop. 69 also seems to violate parts of the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
which puts a 7 year limit on easy access to private data. This may be
the most serious ramification if the absolute privacy of the DNA
database can't be secured. See www.ftc.gov/os/statutes/fcra.htm
If the DNA database can be used as a de-facto background checker (a
one-stop felon locator vs. spot checking counties or institutions),
many people may find themselves fearing for jobs or reputations
formerly protected by the passage of time. Nobody wants to spend their
entire life being viewed as a pit bull who might go bad with the right
stimulus, but that's what the whole "felon" label does. There's no
true justice in America without an allowance for self-improvement and
privacy after a mistake.
I don't think Proposition 69 should be repealed, but it should be
modified to include only felonies where significant physical or
psychological harm was done to the victim(s). There should be an
exempt subcategory of non-violent (probation-only) felons who had no
prior record and have never since exhibited criminal behavior.
A specific scenario is that a fully reformed, never dangerous "felon"
could leave a stray hair in a public place (like a hotel) that later
becomes a crime scene. If his hair is the only "felon" hair found by
forensics, guess who they'll target first, even if he had nothing to
do with it?
MB
|
| |
| |
On 4 Nov 2004 20:32:32 -0800, marlon_branded@yahoo.com (Marlon
Branded) wrote:
California's recently approved Proposition 69 expands DNA sampling to
include non-violent felons and essentially lumps all "felons" into one
suspicious group. Such measures are in place in 34 other states but
they violate American principles of fair play and redemption.
Eventually everyone's DNA will be in the database and the distinction
will be moot. It's getting that way in the UK where DNA samples are
taken (and retained) of everyone who is arrested, regardless of
whether they are eventually acquitted or even when they are released
without charge.
Since the taking and testing of forensic samples is by no means
foolproof it won't be long before law abiding citizens are arrested
out of the blue for offences they know nothing about.
Then 'experts' will tell juries the test is infallible with
astronomical odds against false positives.
|
| |
| |
marlon_branded@yahoo.com (Marlon Branded) wrote in message news:<f14016e7.0411042032.455d6b05@posting.google.com>...
Prop. 69 perpetuates "FELON" stigma
Umm...don't commit a felony then?
Lighthope
Pearls of Wisdom - Artificial Intelligence: The other guy's opinion.
--== THE DOCTOR WHO AUDIO DRAMAS: http://www.dwad.net
--== Give performance reviews of your boss: http://www.rateyourboss.org
--== Everlasting Films Call Board: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/everlastingfilms
|
| |
| |
Mr Nobody <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0limo05q56v5macjj3m1dk2iknv8kcdrvm@4ax.com>...
On 4 Nov 2004 20:32:32 -0800, marlon_branded@yahoo.com (Marlon
Branded) wrote:
Eventually everyone's DNA will be in the database and the distinction
will be moot. It's getting that way in the UK where DNA samples are
taken (and retained) of everyone who is arrested, regardless of
whether they are eventually acquitted or even when they are released
without charge.
Since the taking and testing of forensic samples is by no means
foolproof it won't be long before law abiding citizens are arrested
out of the blue for offences they know nothing about.
Then 'experts' will tell juries the test is infallible with
astronomical odds against false positives.
They get away with this crap incrementally. I can't believe
Californians voted this in. When did we have to give thumbprints to
get our drivers licenses (I don't remember voting for or against
that), for instance? Pretty soon, they will require fingerprinting of
children, under the guise of "public health and safety" even though
this is a useless exercise that does not one thing to increase the
safety of the child.
|
| |
| |
lighthope@onepost.net (Lighthope) wrote in message news:<1d005fc7.0411051202.5197a8d3@posting.google.com>...
marlon_branded@yahoo.com (Marlon Branded) wrote in message news:<f14016e7.0411042032.455d6b05@posting.google.com>...
Umm...don't commit a felony then?
Go back to my message and read paragraphs 2 and 3. You can pat
yourself on the back for being squeaky clean, but there are bumps in
the road for some people. America is supposed to be about redemption
for those who made mistakes that didn't really harm anyone. We talk
about reform, but what are people supposed to do if some stupid
mistake puts up lifetime barriers to employment? People really like to
slap labels on others.
My main worry is that these DNA banks will be used for unofficial
background checks that circumvent privacy laws like the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. The text of Prop. 69 is in dry language that makes that
aspect unclear.
The word "felony" can cover a long list of offenses that have no
relation to violent crime. Many who commit "only" misdemeanors do so
more frequently and are much bigger punks than one-time "felons." I'm
not excusing all those crimes, but they shouldn't be grouped with
truly heinous acts committed by career criminals. If you have no
sympathy, pray that you never run afoul of the law unexpectedly.
MB
P.S. It's amusing that Humboldt and SF were the only two counties that
didn't pass Prop. 69. Mendocino and Santa Cruz counties were close
also.
http://vote2004.ss.ca.gov/Returns/prop/mapR069.htm
|
| |
| |
Mr Nobody <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:<0limo05q56v5macjj3m1dk2iknv8kcdrvm@4ax.com>...
California's recently approved Proposition 69 expands DNA sampling to
include non-violent felons and essentially lumps all "felons" into one
suspicious group. Such measures are in place in 34 other states but
they violate American principles of fair play and redemption.
Eventually everyone's DNA will be in the database and the distinction
will be moot. It's getting that way in the UK where DNA samples are
taken (and retained) of everyone who is arrested, regardless of
whether they are eventually acquitted or even when they are released
without charge.
Since the taking and testing of forensic samples is by no means
foolproof it won't be long before law abiding citizens are arrested
out of the blue for offences they know nothing about.
Then 'experts' will tell juries the test is infallible with
astronomical odds against false positives.
I wouldn't be surprised if they started doing that at birth in a few
decades. My main concern right now is the use of "felon" DNA banks as
ersatz search tools that override existing privacy laws. Does anyone
living in another state with such laws have experience with this?
Many job applications only ask if you've had a conviction in the past
7 years, and this might effectively wipe out the statute of
limitations on background checks. If anyone knows, please explain.
Beneath is the full text of Proposition 69. I don't see anything
stating that names in a DNA database can't be used for background
checks if the "felon" flag pops up for an old offense.
http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov04/prop_69_text_of_proposed_law.pdf
MB
|
| |
| |
Lighthope wrote:
marlon_branded@yahoo.com (Marlon Branded) wrote in message news:<f14016e7.0411042032.455d6b05@posting.google.com>...
Umm...don't commit a felony then?
For your information, it is estimated that approximately 95% of the
population has committed at least one act that, if they had been caught,
was classified as a felony offense in the jurisdiction where they
committed the act.
Until last year, that would include oral sex between husband and wife in
the privacy of their own home in several U.S. states. Not that it was
enforced but it was still a felony offense in several places.
Just because something is a "felony" does not mean someone has done
anything most people would consider 'wrong' or that even caused any form
of harm or damage to other people.
|
| |
| |
Marlon Branded wrote:
California's recently approved Proposition 69 expands DNA sampling to
include non-violent felons and essentially lumps all "felons" into one
suspicious group. Such measures are in place in 34 other states but
they violate American principles of fair play and redemption.
I just re-read the section about sobriety tests.
One is persumed to consent to this test if one
drives a car. Perhaps DNA samples are not so
far off.
I am not a lawyer. I do not even see email sent to this address, due to
past DOS attacks. If you wish to respond, do so through this newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
|
